@zoro, I have asked repeatedly in this thread for someone to volunteer themselves or others to manage this and I would add them in. No one stepped forward but I wasnāt hearing any objections to the revised zero liability proposal so I decided to try to start moving forward. I believe that general review will suffice. I think a lot of good documentation is āI know it when I see itā type of stuff.
Itās an update to the whitepaper. If we ask very nicely, perhaps when weāre all done looking at it, @JordanLee can skim through and make sure the changes seem sane as the ultimate check, but given that a significant portion of the work is going to involve collecting and verifying information on whatever changes have been made, to some extent reading through the threads should allow any interested person to be able to see where the information is coming from and verify it with change histories and so forth.
@CoinGame, the report at the end is not intended to be in lieu of communicating with people. I know everyone is terrified Iām going to go off into a corner by myself and magically get a lot of worthless hours in. Iām going to be asking questions here to get started on style and substance of the update, including one Iāve already thought of: do we want to keep the original white paper content and revised information largely separate, with updates after, or do we want to create basically a āWhitepaper 2.0ā document to describe the system as if it were created new today?
That is, is the whitepaper intended to convey the history of how we got to the updates as well, or is the scope limited to a technical description of the current system?
Iāll have a thread for everyone to put major points which need to be included in the update as well, etc.
Github for the whitepaper is an excellent idea as well. Iāll make a repo for it at some point relatively soon after the motion passes and I start doing on-the-clock work with this.
Of course, the first couple hours I put in will likely be largely reading and initial revision notes and such. And in order to avoid distraction and over-head, Iām not going to go to the extreme of live-tweeting my work or similar.
But Iām not going to keep you guys in the dark. The information comes from you guys and the re-write goes to you guys.
By the way, did the site go down for a bit for anyone else like an hour ago? I was trying to load the forums / nubits.com and blockexplorer.nu when I first got up but they wouldnāt load for me and I couldnāt ping them. But I donāt know if itās just my local connection, which is sometimes spotty, or the sites themselves, or just a connection in-between, which was the issue. Anyhow, resolved itself and back. 
The reason the motion is written as it is is so that I have an authorization to do a small bit of initial work to present. I canāt wait two weeks for every hour of work for a motion to pass. The motion describes the minimum outline of the process and work just to be able to get started and guarantees zero liability to the shareholders so that they feel comfortable being able to see the results. Obviously Iām highly motivated to make sure the results will be acceptable, so Iāll be doing everything I can to ensure that everyone who wants to have any say on this process knows that their voice has been heard and their input given its proper place.
Absolutely anyone and everyone who chooses to be is a manager on this project as far as Iām concerned. 
And donāt worry, I habitually exclude meetings/conversations with customers from hours billed, which is basically all of requirements gathering, which is exactly why there is always so much background work off-the-clock. But the advantage to the Nu shareholders here is that they can each have as much personal involvement as they like in making sure that the changes are complete and accurate without worrying about adding to the cost.
Itās worth it to me. The reason I initially came up with these policies was precisely because it was important to me that the product be right, and that means the customer canāt be feeling like they need to be in a hurry when giving instructions, because that is a very bad start. Iām always glad to get information as early as possible. I make myself available.
My goal throughout is to do the job right and have the customer satisfied. Which rests on proper requirements gathering and refinement, which along with documentation, is a core point Iām always on about, and which both inherently require a lot of talking to people.
If thereās one thing Iāve learned so far about technology, itās that the work is really about people. This came as something of a surprise to me, having originally gone into technology with a House type of attitude of āIāll be so brilliant I can act however I wantā, to realize that both, no, sorry, plenty of geniuses available on the market, and that actually many of the problems technically could be solved by a lot of people but that figuring out the āwho to askā and other types of people / process questions were really the game-changers / force multipliers.
And having worked minimum wage fast food jobs immediately prior as sort of a āworking vacationā, Iāve been polishing my ability to work with people across a wide range of backgrounds and levels of sobriety (on the last, mostly from the customers and passers-by, definitely dealt with a few very drunk and very stoned and similar). xD Not saying that last bit is particularly relevant here, you all seem like quite sober and studious types, but just that, by comparison to my āworking vacationā, working with everyone who has input on this is going to be the āvacation jobā by comparison to that.
tl;dr: I anticipate no problems with the review or with making input and review available to all interested parties throughout the project.
Apologies for massive comment, heh. I promise, this is just my āconversational writingā style. My documentation work is far more concise. Gotta break a lot of eggs to make an omelette, nāest-ce pas?
